alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-1071

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Western District of Arkansas. 

Billy Joe Girty, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: June 7, 2000

 Filed: June 13, 2000

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Billie Joe Girty appeals the District Court’s1 sentence following his guilty plea

to drug trafficking in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994). The District Court

denied Girty’s motion for downward departure under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

Manual § 4A1.3 (policy statement) (1998), and sentenced him to 77 months

imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. On appeal, Girty argues the District
-2-

Court believed it lacked authority to depart and failed to address his downwarddeparture motion. 

Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the District Court was

well aware of the motion before it, and denied the motion as a discretionary matter,

with full knowledge of its authority to depart under § 4A1.3. See United States v.

Correa, 167 F.3d 414, 417 (8th Cir. 1999) (denial of downward departure was

unreviewable where district court considered defendant’s arguments, found no

extraordinary circumstances warranting departure, and did not indicate it lacked

authority to depart); United States v. Payne, 81 F.3d 759, 765 (8th Cir. 1996) (denial

of § 4A1.3 departure was unreviewable where district court heard argument from both

parties at sentencing regarding departure and overall context of court’s statements

indicated it was aware of authority but chose not to depart based on merits of

defendant’s request). Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Edna S. Oram, Appellant, v. Hugh P. Oram, Respondent.

Order affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred.
### §1709. Intervention by Attorney General

Whenever a civil action is instituted under section 1706 of this title by an individual, the Attorney General may intervene in such action upon timely application.

(Pub. L. 93–380, title II, §210, Aug. 21, 1974, 88 Stat. 516.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective on and after sixtieth day after Aug. 21, 1974, see section 2(c) of Pub. L. 93–380, set out as a note under section 1221–1 of this title.
September 3, 2015

Mr. Steve Neilson

123 Center Street

Grayslake, IL 60030

Dear Mr. Neilson:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

§§ 61.113(a) and (b), 91.103, 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 

91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We received your exemption request filed in Docket No. FAA−2015−1838 on May 20, 2015, 

but we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does not comply with the 

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must 

send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4
#### CRUYSEN v. SCUDDER.

No. 14253.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Aug. 13, 1954.

Morgan V. Spicer, H. R. Whiting, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant,

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Charles e. McClung, Clarence A. Linn, Asst, Attys. Gen., State of California, Kenyon j. Scudder, Superintendent, California Institution for Men, Chino, California, for appellee.

Before DENMAN, Chief Judge, and BONE and ORR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Cruysen petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court for the Southern District of California. The petition was denied. He appeals. We are of the opinion that the United States District Court had no jurisdiction to hear the petition because appellant has not exhausted his state remedies.

From his conviction in the state court Cruysen appealed to the District Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, of the State of California. That court affirmed the conviction. People v. Van Bibber, 96 Cal.App.2d 273, 215 P.2d 106. Cruysen then petitioned the Supreme Court of the State of California for a hearing. This was denied.

Cruysen did not apply to the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari. He asserts that it was impossible for him to comply with this requirement in the exhaustion of state remedies because the records and papers upon which he must rely in petitioning the Supreme Court of the United States for certiorari were lost by the prison officials in whose custody he then was.

Without deciding whether the reasons advanced for the failure to petition the United States Supreme Court for certi-orari rendered that step in the exhaustion of state remedies unnecessary, we think a state remedy which has not been exhausted is still available, viz: a petition to the California state courts for a writ of habeas corpus. Cruysen says it would be useless to so petition the Cali*513fornia courts because said courts have passed upon the exact questions which could be presented by a petition for the writ. Nevertheless, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the state courts would, in the event a decision of the California courts were adverse, permit Cruy-sen to apply to the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari and thus exhaust a remedy of which he has failed to avail himself.

The order denying the issuance of the writ and dismissing the petition is affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JESSE A. GARDNER, JR.,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 207 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of July, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### § 418.2210 What is not a major life-changing event?

We will follow the rules in § 418.1210, except that any references in that section to regulations in subpart B of this part shall be treated as references to the corresponding regulation in this subpart.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,406
<SECURITIES>                                     7,302
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,663
<ALLOWANCES>                                       895
<INVENTORY>                                     28,370
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                61,726
<PP&E>                                          46,401
<DEPRECIATION>                                  36,712
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  78,599
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,312
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           108
<OTHER-SE>                                      55,648
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    78,599
<SALES>                                        117,843
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               117,843
<CGS>                                           74,985
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  118,921
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,078)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,078)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,078)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.10)
        

</TABLE>
### §1098g. Exemption from State disclosure requirements

Loans made, insured, or guaranteed pursuant to a program authorized by title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.) shall not be subject to any disclosure requirements of any State law.

(Pub. L. 97–320, title VII, §701(b), Oct. 15, 1982, 96 Stat. 1538.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Higher Education Act of 1965, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 89–329, Nov. 8, 1965, 79 Stat. 1219. Title IV of the Act is classified generally to this subchapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1001 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 1099 of this title.

Section was enacted as part of the Garn-St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982, and not as part of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 which comprises this subchapter.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective both with respect to loans made prior to and after Oct. 15, 1982, see section 701(c) of Pub. L. 97–320, set out as an Effective Date of 1982 Amendment note under section 1603 of Title 15, Commerce and Trade.
### Part V—Contingencies
§ 404.201 What is included in this subpart? In this subpart we describe how we compute your primary insurance amount (PIA), how and when we will recalculate or recompute your PIA to include credit for additional earnings, and how we automatically adjust your PIA to reflect changes in the cost of living. ( a ) *What is my primary insurance amount?* Your primary insurance amount (PIA) is the basic figure we use to determine the monthly benefit amount payable to you and your family. For example, if you retire in the month you attain full retirement age (as defined in § 404.409) or if you become disabled, you will be entitled to a monthly benefit equal to your PIA. If you retire prior to full retirement age your monthly benefit will be reduced as explained in §§ 404.410-404.413. Benefits to other members of your family are a specified percentage of your PIA as explained in subpart D. Total benefits to your family are subject to a maximum as explained in § 404.403.
( b ) *How is this subpart organized?* ( 1 ) In §§ 404.201 through 404.204, we explain some introductory matters.
( 2 ) In §§ 404.210 through 404.213, we describe the average-indexed-monthly-earnings method we use to compute the primary insurance amount (PIA) for workers who attain age 62 (or become disabled or die before age 62) after 1978.
( 3 ) In §§ 404.220 through 404.222, we describe the average-monthly-wage method we use to compute the PIA for workers who attain age 62 (or become disabled or die before age 62) before 1979.
( 4 ) In §§ 404.230 through 404.233, we describe the guaranteed alternative method we use to compute the PIA for people who attain age 62 after 1978 but before 1984.
( 5 ) In §§ 404.240 through 404.243, we describe the old-start method we use to compute the PIA for those who had all or substantially all of their social security covered earnings before 1951.
( 6 ) In §§ 404.250 through 404.252, we describe special rules we use to compute the PIA for a worker who previously had a period of disability.
( 7 ) In §§ 404.260 through 404.261, we describe how we compute the special minimum PIA for long-term, low-paid workers.
( 8 ) In §§ 404.270 through 404.278, we describe how we automatically increase your PIA because of increases in the cost of living.
( 9 ) In §§ 404.280 through 404.288, we describe how and when we will recompute your PIA to include additional earnings which were not used in the original computation.
( 10 ) In § 404.290 we describe how and when we will recalculate your PIA.
( 11 ) Appendices I-VII contain material such as figures and formulas that we use to compute PIAs.
[68 FR 4701, Jan. 30, 2003]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                      19,994,460
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,092,596
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  6,222,612
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            36,867,758
<PP&E>                                       7,129,482
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,383,267
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              48,196,430
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,034,589
<BONDS>                                      3,713,958
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       805,508
<OTHER-SE>                                  39,567,342
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                48,196,430
<SALES>                                      7,956,885
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,956,885
<CGS>                                        3,137,861
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,137,861
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,987,588
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              55,402
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                947,375
<INCOME-TAX>                                   350,207
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            597,168
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   597,168
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
        

</TABLE>
# C_2012372EN.01000302.xml

| 1.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/3

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2012/C 372/05

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 11.11.2012 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 11.11.2012-31.12.2012 |
| Member State | Portugal |
| Stock or group of stocks | BET/ATLANT |
| Species | Bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) |
| Zone | Atlantic Ocean |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | FS/72/TQ44 |

Date and time of closure

11.11.2012

Duration

11.11.2012-31.12.2012

Member State

Portugal

Stock or group of stocks

BET/ATLANT

Species

Bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus)

Thunnus obesus

Zone

Atlantic Ocean

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

FS/72/TQ44

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 416
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 416 appear at 68 FR 53509, Sept. 11, 2003.

§ 416.922 What we mean by an impairment(s) that is not severe in an adult. ( a ) *Non-severe impairment(s).* An impairment or combination of impairments is not severe if it does not significantly limit your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.
( b ) *Basic work activities.* When we talk about basic work activities, we mean the abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs. Examples of these include— ( 1 ) Physical functions such as walking, standing, sitting, lifting, pushing, pulling, reaching, carrying, or handling;
( 2 ) Capacities for seeing, hearing, and speaking;
( 3 ) Understanding, carrying out, and remembering simple instructions;
( 4 ) Use of judgment;
( 5 ) Responding appropriately to supervision, co-workers and usual work situations; and
( 6 ) Dealing with changes in a routine work setting.
[82 FR 5879, Jan. 18, 2017]
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4233 

To eliminate an unused lighthouse reservation, provide management consistency by incorporating the rocks and small islands along the coast of 

Orange County, California, into the California Coastal National Monument managed by the Bureau of Land Management, and meet the 

original Congressional intent of preserving Orange County’s rocks and 

small islands, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 10, 2015 

Mr. ROHRABACHER (for himself, Mr. ISSA, Mr. LOWENTHAL, Mr. ROYCE, and 

Mrs. MIMI WALTERS of California) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To eliminate an unused lighthouse reservation, provide management consistency by incorporating the rocks and small 

islands along the coast of Orange County, California, 

into the California Coastal National Monument managed 

by the Bureau of Land Management, and meet the original Congressional intent of preserving Orange County’s 

rocks and small islands, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4233 IH

1 SECTION 1. PRESERVATION OF ROCKS AND SMALL IS2 LANDS ALONG THE COAST OF ORANGE COUN3 TY, CALIFORNIA. 

4 (a) CALIFORNIA COASTAL NATIONAL MONUMENT.— 

5 The Act of February 18, 1931, entitled ‘‘An Act to reserve 

6 for public use rocks, pinnacles, reefs, and small islands 

7 along the seacoast of Orange County, California’’ (46 

8 Stat. 1172) is amended— 

9 (1) by striking ‘‘, temporarily reserved’’ and all 

10 that follows through ‘‘United States’’ and inserting 

11 ‘‘part of the California Coastal National Monument 

12 and shall be administered as such’’; and 

13 (2) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘In ad14 ministering the lands added to the California Coast15 al National Monument by this Act, the Secretary of 

16 the Interior shall ensure that economic and rec17 reational activities conducted on such lands shall 

18 continue to be allowed to the same extent to which 

19 such activities were authorized and ongoing on the 

20 day before such lands were added to the national 

21 monument.’’. 

22 (b) REPEAL OF RESERVATION.—Section 31 of the 

23 Act of May 28, 1935, entitled ‘‘An Act to authorize the 

24 Secretary of Commerce to dispose of certain lighthouse 

25 reservations, and for other purposes’’ is hereby repealed. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 61

 61

 65

 66

 63

 61

 57

 61

 81

 75

 58

 65

 82

 96

 94

 88

 98

 98

 103

 100

 94

 98

 92

 95

 91

 87

 87

 81

 95

 94

 52

 52

 54

 53

 53

 53

 53

 53

 54

 55

 54

 54

 55

 78

 77

 75

 76

 75

 76

 78

 75

 75

 75

 72

 72

 67

 68

 69

 72

 74

 54

 54

 55

 56

 55

 54

 54

 54

 66

 60

 56

 56

 67

 83

 81

 77

 79

 80

 85

 83

 81

 81

 78

 79

 77

 73

 72

 73

 77

 79

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JUNE 2007 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: July 9, 2007

HIGH LOW MEAN

 61.8

 62.3

 63.0

 63.4

 62.6

 60.6

 62.3

 62.7

 65.2

 64.6

 64.9

 65.4

 69.0

 71.9

 74.4

 74.0

 73.4

 73.4

 73.6

 72.6

 72.9

 73.0

 72.9

 72.0

 72.1

 73.3

 73.5

 73.7

 74.6

 74.2

 59.5

 59.8

 59.6

 60.9

 60.3

 58.0

 58.8

 59.4

 60.3

 62.0

 61.1

 62.6

 63.3

 67.5

 70.1

 70.4

 69.2

 69.4

 69.6

 68.9

 68.6

 68.8

 68.6

 68.0

 67.8

 69.1

 69.2

 69.2

 70.0

 69.7

 60.7

 60.9

 61.3

 62.1

 61.2

 59.4

 60.2

 61.0

 62.5

 63.6

 63.1

 64.0

 65.7

 69.4

 71.9

 72.2

 71.2

 71.5

 71.6

 70.7

 70.7

 70.8

 70.6

 70.1

 70.1

 71.1

 71.2

 71.4

 72.1

 71.9

HIGH LOW MEAN

 8.4

 8.3

 8.3

 8.0

 8.0

 9.9

 9.9

 9.7

 9.3

 9.1

 9.1

 9.0

 8.7

 7.7

 8.7

 8.7

 8.8

 8.7

 8.7

 9.1

 9.2

 9.2

 9.0

 9.0

 9.1

 9.1

 8.9

 8.7

 8.8

 8.5

 8.1

 8.0

 7.8

 7.6

 7.7

 7.9

 9.4

 9.2

 8.3

 8.5

 8.6

 8.6

 7.7

 7.2

 7.2

 8.2

 8.5

 8.3

 8.2

 8.5

 8.8

 8.7

 8.6

 8.6

 8.6

 8.7

 8.5

 8.3

 8.0

 8.0

 8.2

 8.2

 8.1

 7.8

 7.8

 9.0

 9.7

 9.5

 8.9

 8.9

 8.9

 8.8

 8.3

 7.6

 8.0

 8.5

 8.7

 8.5

 8.5

 8.7

 9.0

 9.0

 8.8

 8.9

 8.9

 8.9

 8.7

 8.6

 8.4

 8.3

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

RIPON ON THE STANISLAUS RIVER

 ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS WATER TEMPERATURE, DEG DISSOLVED OXYZEN, PPM
#### Moe Wallach, Respondent, v. Louis Kuritzky et al., Doing Business under the Name of Kuritzky’s Dairy, et al., Appellants.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff, and for property damage, as a consequence of a collision of plaintiff’s automobile and defendants’ truck. Judgment for the plaintiff unanimously affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion. Present — Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ.